Alright Bunch, I got this for you about tax cut and corporations outsourcing which I find close to the truth why jobs are being outsourced.

According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as
China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing
factors to off-shoring.

I also found this for you. This may help you make your argument as to why not all the tax cuts should be reinstated. But like I said before some of
them would be beneficial to many Americans who aren't rich.

I can name some of these companies: Motorola, Stern Pinball, Circuit Services Inc, Siemens, Alcoa,Buehler,Baxter International,Texas Instruments, and
the list goes on, and on. Many of these companies had small hubs set up in these countries until there profit margins increased from tax insentives,
and then started moving entire operation to Asia for cheaper labor. Our manufaturing base for electronics,large appliances, and tangiable goods are
all being made over their.

Outsourcing is not necessarily a bad thing. From the same article you cite:

"If a U.S. firm shifts employment abroad," said the Washington Post in an editorial on Jan. 26, "the savings flow back to the United States in
the form of lower prices for consumers and higher dividends for shareholders; the consumers and shareholders will direct their new spending power at
things that create employment. Meanwhile, the fall in prices will allow the Federal Reserve to keep interest rates lower, boosting the job-creation
engine."

Indeed, a study by the McKinsey Global Institute, found that two-thirds of the benefits of outsourcing flow to the United States.

And many of the companies you list have their hands tied. Exxon, for example, drills in many foreign countries that demand using a certain percentage
of local labor in return for the privilege of drilling in their country.

Other examples:

Alamo Rent-A-Car...what are they supposed to do? Ship a Chevy to Japan when you rent it there?

Coca Cola.... much cheaper to manufacture perishables closer to the consumer.

You dont get it. The article that I cite is from 2004, when none of these policies had shown their full effect on the economy. I can also found you
another quote about the benefits of outsourcing:

Gregory Mankiw, chairman of president George W. Bush Council of Economic Advisors, recently told the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S.
Congress that the outsourcing of American jobs “is something we should realize is probably a plus for the economy in the long run.”
After all, he said, “Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade.”
Mankiw, who testified recently in support of the Economic Report of the president for 2004, apparently didn’t share other interesting tidbits about
how America’s families have fared in the face of outsourcing and Bush economics.
For instance:
•The economy has lost more than 2.8 million manufacturing jobs since Bush took office, according to the AFL-CIO. The number of long-term jobless
workers has been roughly two million for months, and for much of that time, long-term unemployment has been at its highest rate since 1983.
•The International Monetary Fund, a group that is not known for criticizing the White House, recently released a report saying that the twin
deficits, America’s growing budget deficit and the ballooning trade deficit, threaten the financial stability of the global economy.

Bush’s economic report, which Mankiw supports, predicts the economy will generate 3.4 million new jobs this year which would mean an average 325,000
new jobs each month. Of course, last spring, the council said the president’s “Jobs and Growth” tax cut plan for millionaires would create
306,000 jobs monthly starting in July. Yet by February 2004, actual job growth was 1.8 million jobs short of the Bush administration prediction.

One Republican, representative, Donald Manzullo, of Illinois, thought Mankiw’s comments were so out of sync with the devastation of outsourcing
American jobs overseas that he suggested the Bush advisor resign. “He ought to walk away and return to his ivy-covered office at Harvard,”
Manzullo told the Washington Post.

This article is also from 2004. So it really depends from the perspective that you view the issue. I for one side with Sen. Obama that no tax cuts,
subsidies or credits should be given to companies that ship jobs overseas, is simple, where are the benefits of doing that, does it benefit the
worker? No, does it benefit the government? No. Tax policies should be put in place with the goal of benefiting both sides, if not at least one of
these two, BUT NONE?

And you can say that with oursourcing goods are cheapers, well it really doesn't matter if the people that are hurting, the middle class and them
poor, a merely surviving paycheck to paycheck and dont have money to buy the goods. It really doesn't matter how cheap they are if the folks that are
loosing their high paying jobs and now have to get by with lower end paying jobs.

these companies had small hubs set up in these countries until there profit margins increased from tax insentives, and then started moving
entire operation to Asia for cheaper labor. [ /quote]

It isn't because of tax incentives, cuts, or breaks the US gives them. It is because other countries give them a better tax break. Kinda like when a
factory is going to build a new plant but can't decide where to build. They shop around 4 or 5 cities or states to see which one will give them the
best tax breaks. Ireland corporate tax rate is about 12.5% compared to the US which is about 30 something percent.

They do outsource to Asia and other countries because of lower wages. I agree with this.

The deferral clause has been in the tax code for more than half a century and has outlasted numerous reform efforts. In April 1961, even as
U.S.-backed rebels were dying at Cuba's Bay of Pigs, President Kennedy asked Congress to rewrite tax provisions that "consistently favor United
States private investment abroad compared with investment in our own economy."

This is the tax break Obama is talking about but it is a tax law. Perfectly legal. Pay attention how long this law has been in effect. The article is
also interesting. I kinda question whether it is the real reason why jobs are going overseas especially since we have been losing jobs overseas for
many years.

In addition if Obama really thought that this was a major reason why we were losing jobs overseas why didn't he try to pass legislation to overturn
this law?

I think the real reason is that other countries offer a lower tax rate in addition to cheaper labor. A corporation number one priority is to make
money for its shareholders.

jsobecky check out this article. I think you will like the information. Knowledge is power.

I don't think that manufacturing of soda and car rental examples are relevant. What's more relevant are the likes of suppor centers run by Dell and
other in Inda etc. Most people who had to debug their wireless router using some tech help had one of the two experiences:
a) internet chat which makes the support personnel language skills les relevant
b) endure thick accents

The problem is that we never are going to be on a level playing field with these countries,there will be always countries were labor is cheaper. So
the question remains, why give tax cuts to these companies that ship their jobs overseas? Sen. McCain wants not only to make the Bush tax policies
permanent, but he would also add some tax cuts of his own.

We already face a record deficit, we are loosing jobs at a record pace, more tax cuts would only serve to expand that deficit, and it would NOT create
jobs as it has been proven for the past 8 years.

How Sen. McCain plan of more tax cuts would create jobs and reduce the record deficit? Please someone explain.

This morning on 'Good Morning America' McCain, when asked about the current state of the economy, railed against what he described as 'corruption'
in big businesses as well as poor oversight and greed as being the basis of our current economic nightmare. He said that only a short time ago these
CEO's were saying 'everything is fine, everything is fine', when in fact it was not. He suggested that they should be investigated and potentially
jailed for this deception.

Day-before-yesterday, as the NYSE tanked, he said to the cameras, 'The economy is sound'. This a day after Alan Greenspan (somewhat better-heeled
in economics than McCain) said the economy was in a 'once-in-a-hundred-years crisis'. 90 minutes after McCain made his statement about the economy
being sound he was again in front of cameras saying the economy was in a crisis. Which is it?

It would take a great deal of space to chronicle the instances of Bush et al saying 'the economy is sound' as it unraveled. So, using McCain's
position on corporate liability for deception of their financial condition, wouldn't it stand to reason that the Administration is responsible for
misleading us during this economic meltdown? Shouldn't they be investigated and potentially jailed? And what about McCain himself? Isn't he
guilty of the same thing (as recent as Monday)?

Let's be honest. Neither one will reduce the defecit. They will promise but they won't be able to.

Now there are 4 tax cuts I think we should keep. These are lower corporate taxes, the 10% tax bracket, marriage penalty relief, and the child
credit.

3 of these help low and middle income family. The corporate tax cut helps corporations and consumers. If you raise the corporate tax consumers will
pay more in the form of prices.

One also has to take into consideration the global market. When the global market is struggling we will also struggle. We are becoming a global nation
whether we like it or not. A lot of the job loss are due to this. Not because of tax cuts. I will say this, you are correct in this area. History has
shown that tax cuts do not always create the jobs politicians think they will. Part of the problem is that everything is based on an assumption that
the economy would remain good. Under this assumption the numbers of jobs created would be high. However, reality is that the economy is always up and
down.

Your right we will never be on a level playing field but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. If we get too harsh on all of these corporations you
might as well kiss them good-bye. Other countries will welcome them with open arms. I think that instead of making corporations, especially oil, look
like villians, Obama should try the same kind of diplomacy he intends to use with our enemies. He wants to sit down, talk, and iron our differences
with our enemy but wants to belittle, punish, and tarnish the image of some of the corporations that America depends on. Diplomacy goes a long way in
both foreign and domestic policy.

This what many people fail to recognize, Bush policies have fail, McCain is criticizing them, but a great portion of his economic plan is a recycle
waste from Bush policies.He clearly has no clue about the economy and I dont know why people would defend his plan.

If people want to vote for Sen. McCain they should vote for him for the other qualities that he has, good on foreign policy, good for education, he is
a republican....or whatever.

But trying to defend a McCain vote because of his economic vision or knowledge is just absolutely ridiculous.

Originally posted by Bunch
You dont get it. The article that I cite is from 2004, when none of these policies had shown their full effect on the economy. I can also found you
another quote about the benefits of outsourcing:

No, you don't get the fatal effects of isolationism in a global market. Why should I be forced to pay $100 for a $25 pair of sneakers?

Overcharging for a product because of high labor costs results in one thing: a shrinking customer base as your global customers choose to buy from
overseas. The end result is that the only market you have left is your own citizens.

Economic evolution requires adaption to a changing world. You cannot demand that labor-intensive jobs remain in the country when those jobs can be
performed much cheaper overseas. That is, unless you want inflation, wages, and interest rates to spiral out of control.

The key to surviving is job creation in the fields in which we excel. Do it faster, cheaper, better, or else die.

I don't think that manufacturing of soda and car rental examples are relevant.

I only used them to prove that there is more than meets the eye when people create these huge lists of companies which have "outsourced" jobs.

What's more relevant are the likes of suppor centers run by Dell and other in Inda etc. Most people who had to debug their wireless router using
some tech help had one of the two experiences:
a) internet chat which makes the support personnel language skills les relevant
b) endure thick accents

And in either case, good tech jobs had fled this country.

Behind the support centers, someone had to create and design the hardware and software that needs call support. That's where we excel, and that's
where we should continue to concentrate our efforts.

Failure to do that will result in a $400 eMachine to cost $700 to cover the additional labor costs.

Thanks for your response. I think we can agree to disagree which is perfect, it shows what people cares the most and there is nothing wrong to say
about that. Only the election would tell who the overall majority of the people think can lead this country in the right directio as far as the
economy goes.

Originally posted by jam321
Not because of tax cuts. I will say this, you are correct in this area. History has shown that tax cuts do not always create the jobs politicians
think they will. Part of the problem is that everything is based on an assumption that the economy would remain good. Under this assumption the
numbers of jobs created would be high. However, reality is that the economy is always up and down.

Another fact to consider is that tax cuts do not endlessly return higher revenue to the gov't. There is a point of diminishing returns.

But that does not mean we cannot continue to use them when they are beneficial.

Let me be clear about something, I am not against tax credit for corporations, if these corporation can show that they are actively creating jobs here
on the U.S. like Sen. Obama's plan proposes, I have no problem with that.

I agree that none of this candidates would be able to reduce the deficit in its entirity but a good economic plan could lead the country in the right
direction.

John McCain continues to support NAFTA. This agreement that has cost an estimated 3 million jobs since 2000 and stagnated American middle class
wage rates. It has also hastened a race to the bottom where off shoring of industries to low paying, poor labor standard nations is the only way
domestic companies can compete. This is wrong

NAFTA is not serving the interests of the U.S. economy or the American people. It is dismantling our chance as a country to compete rather than
enabling it. McCain's ideas on this issue are dead wrong. A new vision on America's trade polices is needed.

Source Insurancenewsnet:

"If I am elected president, this country will honor its international agreements, including NAFTA, and we will expect the same of others,"
McCain said. "And in a time of uncertainty for American workers, we will not undo the gains of years in trade agreements now awaiting final
approval."

This is another example of Sen. McCain wrong vision on the economy, this FTA's clearly are hurting the american working class, those in the middle
class have seen theor jobs been taken overseas by thses type of agreement that Sen. McCain say he has no problem with, contrary to Sen. Obama's plan
that calls for a redo of many of this FTA's

Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama and Biden believe that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. They
will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers

By taking on NAFTA Sen. Obama shows that he has show that he in fact independent from his own party, the Clinton's were supporters of it, George HW
and the current president were supporters of it, Sen. McCain even after seeing that is not working supports it also.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.